ix. 5, and, viewed in its character of a proper name, is like the

German "_Friedrich_" = Frederick, _i.e._, "rich in peace," "the Peaceful one."

To Shiloh the nations shall adhere. The word יקהה is commonly understood as meaning "obedience."[9] But it does not [Pg 70] denote every kind of obedience, but only that which is spontaneous, and has its root in piety. This is clearly shown by the only passage in which, besides the one under consideration, the word יקהה is found, Prov. xxx. 17: "An eye that mocketh at his father, and despises the יקהה of his mother."[10] To this view we are led also by the Arabic, where the word [Arabic: **], does not denote obedience in general, but willing obedience, docility, in the viii. sq. ל _dicto audientem se præbuit more discipuli_. (Compare _Camus_ in _Schulten_, on Prov. l. c.) Cognate is [Arabic: **], "to take care," "to guard oneself," specially of the conflict with the higher powers of life, in the viii. _semet custodivit ah aliqua re, et absolute timuit coluitque Deum, pius fuit._ From it is derived יקה _pius_ in Prov. xxx. 1, where the son of Jakeh speaks to "With me is God, and I prevail" (_Heb._ Itheal and Ucal.)

Luther, although he has misunderstood the right meaning of Shiloh, has yet beautifully comprehended the sense of the whole passage. "This is a golden text," he says, "and well worthy of remembrance, namely: that the kingdom of Christ will not be such a kingdom as that of David was, of whom it is said, 1 Chron. xxviii. 3, that he was a man of war and had shed much blood. The kingdom of Shiloh, which succeeded it, is not a kingdom so powerful and bloody, but consists in this,--that the word, by which it is ruled or administered, is heard, believed, and obeyed. All will be done by means of preaching; and this will just be the sign by which the kingdom of Christ is distinguished from the other kingdoms of this world, which are governed by the sword and by physical power." To this point also Luther draws attention, that our prophecy affords a powerful support to the ministers of the Word: "It will be done by the proclamation of the promise, and Shiloh will be [Pg 71] present with it, and will be efficient and powerful through our tongue and mouth."

That by the _nations_ are not meant either the Canaanites in particular, or the tribes of Israel, but the nations in general, appears, partly, from the connection with what precedes--those who now willingly obey are evidently the enemies spoken of in vers. 8, 9,--and, partly, from the reference to the earlier promises of Genesis, all of which refer to nations in general. If a limitation had been intended, an express indication of it would have been necessary. The analogy of the parallel Messianic passages likewise militates against such a limitation; _e.g._, Ps. lxxii. 8: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." (Compare also Is. xi. 10.)

In the Shiloh, the whole dignity of Judah as Lord and Ruler is to be concentrated. It hence follows, that the nations who will not willingly obey Him as Shiloh, must experience the destructive power of His sceptre (Num. xxiv. 17; Ps. ii. 9), and that behind the attractive kingdom of peace, there is concealed the destructive dominion of the lion.

Several interpreters have determined the sense as follows:--The dominion of Judah should continue until the appearing of Shiloh; but that then he should lose it.[11] We, on the contrary, conceive the sense to be this: "That the tribe of Judah should not lose the dominion until he attain to its highest realization by Shiloh, who should be descended from him, and to whom all the nations of the earth should render obedience."

Against this interpretation no difficulty can be raised from the עד כי. It is true that this term has always a reference to the _terminus ad quem_ only, and includes it; but it is as certain that, very frequently, a _terminus ad quem_ is mentioned which is not intended to be the last, but only one of special importance; so that what lies beyond it is lost sight of. (Compare the author's _Dissert. on the Genuin. of Daniel_, pp. 55-56.) If [Pg 72] only sceptre and lawgiver were secured to Judah up to the time of Shiloh's coming, then, as a matter of course, they were so afterwards. That, previous to the coming of Shiloh, great dangers would threaten the sceptre of Judah, is indicated by Jacob, since he lays so much stress upon the sceptre's not departing until that time. _Hence we expect circumstances that will almost amount to a departing of the sceptre._

But the positive reason for this interpretation is, that if, according to the other opinion, Judah were told that the dominion of his tribe were, at some future period, to cease, this would not be in harmony with the tone of the remainder of the address to Judah, which is altogether of a cheerful character. And _then_,--Jacob would, in that case, not have allowed the Messianic promise to remain in its indefinite state; from former analogies, we should have been induced to expect that he would transfer it to one of his sons. And _finally_,--from the analogy of the other Messianic prophecies, as well as from history, it seems not to be admissible to contrast the dominion of Judah with the kingdom of the Messiah. The dominion of Judah does not by any means _terminate_ in Christ; it rather _centres_ in Him.

We are not expressly told that the Shiloh will be descended from Judah; but this is supposed to be self-evident, and is not, therefore, expressly mentioned. If it were otherwise, the Shiloh would not have been alluded to in connection with Judah at all. A restriction of the promise to Judah, such as would take place if the Shiloh did not belong to him, is the less legitimate, inasmuch as, in vers. 8, 9, victory and dominion, without any limitation, are promised to Judah.

Having thus adduced the positive arguments in support of our view of this passage, let us now further examine the opinions of those who differ from us. Here, then, we must first of all consider those which are at one with us in the acknowledgment that this passage contains the promise of a personal Messiah.

1. Some interpreters (_Jonathan_, _Luther_, _Calvin_, _Knapp_, _Dogm._) are of opinion that שילה is compounded of the noun שיל, "child," and the suffix of the third person: "Until his (_i.e._, Judah's) son or descendant, the Messiah, shall come." (Luther, somewhat differently.) But this supposed signification of שיל [Pg 73] is destitute of any tenable foundation. That by such an explanation, moreover, there is a dissolution of the connection betwixt the Shiloh in this passage, and Shiloh the name of a place, which is written in precisely the same manner, is decisive against both the view just given forth and that which follows.

2. Others (the last of them. _Sack_ in the second edition of his _Apolog._) suppose the word to be erroneously pointed. They propose to read שֶׁלֹּה, compounded of ש for אשר, and the suffix ה for ו. They suppose the language to be elliptical: "Until He come to whom the dominion or sceptre belongs, or is due." The principal argument in support of this exposition is, that most of the ancient translators seem to have followed this punctuation. It is true that this is doubtful as regards _Onkelos_ and the _Targum_ of Jerusalem, which translate, "_Donec veniat Messias, cujus est regnum_;" for we may well suppose that here שילה is simply rendered by משיחא, while the following clause adds a complement from Ezek. xxi. 32, which is founded upon the passage now under review. But it is certain that the LXX. supposed the punctuation to be שֶׁלֹּה. They translate: ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ (Thus read the two oldest manuscripts--the Vatican and Alexandrian. The other reading, ᾧ ἀπόκειται, has no doubt crept in from the later Greek translations, notwithstanding the charge which _Justinus_ [_Dial. c. Tryph._ § 120] raises against the Jews, that they had substituted the τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ for the earlier ᾧ ἀπόκειται. Comp. _Stroth_ in _Eichhorn's_ Repert. ii. 95; _Hohne's_ edition of the LXX.) _Aquila_ and _Symmachus_, who translate, ᾧ ἀπόκειται, as well as the Syriac and Saadias, who translate, _Ille cujus est_, follow the same reading. But the defenders of this exposition are wrong in inferring, from the circumstance of the ancient translations having followed this punctuation, that it was generally received. Had such been the case, how could it be explained that it should no more be found in any of our manuscripts? For the circumstance that forty manuscripts collected by _de Rossi_ have שלה written without a י, cannot be considered as of great weight; since it is merely a defective way of writing, occurring frequently in similar words. But if we consider the fact, which may be established upon historical grounds, that the Jews watched with most anxious care the uncorrupted preservation of the received [Pg 74] text of Holy Scripture, according to its consonants and pronunciation; that they did not even venture to receive into the text any emendation, though it should have recommended itself as in the highest degree probable; while, on the other hand, the ancient Jewish and Christian translators took great liberties in this respect, and, in the manifold perplexities into which, owing to their insufficient resources and knowledge, they fell, helped themselves as best they could;--it will certainly appear to us most probable, that even the ancient translators found our vocalization of the word as the received one, but felt themselves obliged to depart from it, because they could, in accordance with it, give no suitable derivation; whilst the punctuation adopted by them agreed perfectly with the traditional reference of the passage to the Messiah. But if this be the case, the authority of the ancient translations can here be of no greater weight than that of any modern interpreter; and, in the case under review, we are at liberty to urge all those considerations which are, in general, advanced against any change in the vocalization, unless there be most urgent reasons for it. The ancient translators, moreover, can have less weight with us, because we can distinctly perceive that a misapprehension of Ezek. xxi. 32 (27)--on which passage we shall afterwards comment--gave rise to their error. Against this explanation it may be further urged, not only that the ש _prefix_ occurs nowhere else in the Pentateuch--an objection which is not in itself sufficient, since it occurs so early as in the song of Deborah, Judges v. 7--but also, that the supposed ellipsis would be exceedingly hard. (Compare _Stange_, _Theol. Symm._ i. S. 238 ff.)

Before we pass on to a consideration of the non-Messianic interpretation, we shall first state the reasons which bear us out in assuming that the passage under review contains a prophecy of a personal Messiah.

It is certainly, with respect to this, a matter of no slight importance that, with a rare agreement, exegetical tradition finds a promise to this effect here expressed; and this circumstance has a significance so much the greater, the less that this agreement extends to the interpretation of the particulars, especially as regards the Shiloh. How manifold soever these differences may be, _all antiquity agrees in interpreting this passage of a personal Messiah_; and we could scarcely conceive of such an agreement, [Pg 75] unless there had been some objective foundation for it. As regards, first, the exegetical tradition of the Jews,--how far soever we may follow it, it finds, in ver. 10, the Messiah. Thus the LXX. explained it; for, that by "what is destined to Judah" (ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ) they understood nothing else than the sending of the Messiah, is shown by the words following--καὶ αὐτὸς προσδοκία ἐθνῶν,--which can refer only to the Messiah. (Compare Is. xlii. 4 according to the LXX.) In the same manner the passage was understood by _Aquila_, the Chaldee Paraphrasts, the _Targum_ of _Onkelos_, of _Jonathan_, and of _Jerusalem_, the _Talmud_, the _Sohar_, and the ancient book of _Breshith Rabba_. Several even of the modern commentators, _e.g._, _Jarchi_, have retained this explanation, although a strong doctrinal interest, to which others yielded, tempted them to give another interpretation to this passage, which occupied so prominent a place in the polemics of the Christians. (Compare the passage in _Raim. Martini Pug. Fid._ ed. _Carpzov_; _Jac. Alting's_ Shiloh, Franc. 1660, 4to [also in the opp. t. v.]; _Schöttgen_, _hor. Hebr._ ii. p. 146; and, most completely, in "_Jac. Patriarch. de Schiloh vatic. a depravatione Clerici assertum_, op. _Seb. Edzardi_, Londini 1698, p. 103 sq.") The Samaritans, too, understood the passage as referring to the Messiah. (Compare _Samarit. Briefwechsel_, communicated by _Schnurrer_ in _Eichhorn's Repert._ ix. S. 27.) It is true that from other passages ("_Epist. Samarit. ad Jobum Ludolfum_," in _Eichhorn's Repert._ xiii. S. 281-9, compared with _de Sacy_ "_de Vers. Samarit. Arab. Pentateuchi_ in _Eichhorn's Biblioth._" x. S. 54) it appears that, in accordance with their doctrine of a double Messiah--one who had already appeared, and one who was still to come--they referred our passage, partly to the former, and denied its reference to the real Messiah. But this is of no importance. For, as Gesenius also has remarked (_Carmina Samaritana_, p. 75), the doctrine of a double Messiah is of recent origin with the Samaritans as well as with the Jews; and hence, it is very probable that the reference to the real Messiah was, formerly, the generally prevailing one, which was, even afterwards, to a large extent retained, as is shown by the passage first quoted.--_Finally_, In the Christian Church the Messianic interpretation has been the prevailing one ever since the earliest times. We find it as early as _Justin Martyr_. [Pg 76] The Greek and Latin Fathers agree in it. (Compare the statements in _Reinke_.) Even _Grotius_ could not but admit that this passage referred to the Messiah; and _Clericus_ stands quite alone and isolated, in his time, as an objector against the Messianic interpretation of it.

But even in the Canon itself, this passage is understood of a personal Messiah. David, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, look upon it in this light. (Concerning this point, compare the inquiries in the subsequent portions of this work.)

The entire relation of the Pentateuch to the succeeding sacred literature, and the circumstance that the former constitutes the foundation of the latter, and contains, in the germ, all that is afterwards more fully developed, entitle us to expect, that the Messianic idea has also found its expression in those books. The more prominent the place occupied, in the later books, by the announcement of a personal Messiah, the more unlikely it will be to him who has acquired right fundamental views regarding the Pentateuch, to conceive that this announcement should be wanting in it--the announcement, especially, of the Messiah in His kingly office; for it is this office of the Messiah which, in the Old Testament, generally takes a prominent place, and is, before all others, represented in the subsequent books. But there cannot be any doubt, that the promise of a personal Messiah in His kingly office, if it be found in the Old Testament at all, must exist in the passage which we are now considering.

The promises which first were given to Jacob's parents, and thereafter transferred to him, included two things:--_first_, a numerous progeny, and the possession of Canaan for them;--and _secondly_, the blessing which, through them, was to come upon all nations. How, then, could it be expected that Jacob, in transferring these blessings to his sons, and while in spirit seeing them already in possession of the promised land, and describing the places of abode which they would occupy, and what should befall them, should have entirely lost sight of the second object, which was much the more important, and as often repeated? Is it not, on the contrary, probable that, as formerly, from among the sons of Abraham and Isaac, so now, from among the sons of Jacob, _he_ should be pointed out who should, according to the will of God, become the depositary of this [Pg 77] promise, which was acquiring more and more of a definite shape? The contrary of this we can the less imagine, because, according to ver. 2, Jacob is to tell his sons that which shall befall them "at the end of the days." The expression, "the end of the days," is always used of that only which lies at the end of the course which is seen by the speaker. (Compare my work on Balaam,[12] p. 465 f.) Accordingly, it indicates, in this passage, that Jacob's announcement must comprehend the whole of the future sphere which was accessible to him. But if we do not admit the reference, in this passage, to the Messiah, then a whole territory of future time, notoriously accessible to Jacob, is left untouched by his announcement.--From the beginning of Genesis, we find the expectation of an universal salvation; and at every new separation, the depositary of this salvation, and its mediator for the whole remaining world, are regularly pointed out. At first, salvation is promised to the whole human race, then to the family of Shem, then to Abraham, then to Isaac, then to Jacob. "Now that the patriarchal _trias_, since Jacob, has extended into a _dodekas_ forming the historical transition from the family of the promise to the nation of the promise, the question arises, from which of the twelve tribes salvation, _i.e._, the victory of mankind, and the blessing of the nations, is to come." (_Delitzsch_, _Prophetische Theologie_, S. 293.) Should Genesis become to such a degree inconsistent with itself as not to answer a question which itself has called forth? But that answer is contained in the passage under consideration, only if Shiloh be taken for the personal name of the Redeemer. Unless we have recourse to artificial explanations, the announcement of Judah's being the bearer of salvation is to be found in our passage, only when, at the same time, the first indication of the person of the Messiah is perceived in it.

If the reference of the passage to a personal Messiah be explained away, we should certainly be at a loss to discover where the fundamental prophecy of such an one could possibly be found. We should then, in the first place, be thrown upon the Messianic Psalms, especially Ps. ii. and cx. But as it is the office of prophecy only to introduce to the knowledge of the congregation [Pg 78] truths absolutely new, it would subvert the whole relation of psalm-poetry to prophecy, if in these psalms we were to seek for the origin of the expectations of a personal Messiah. These psalms become intelligible, only if in Shiloh we recognise the first name of the Messiah. The passage in question, in combination with the prophetical announcement of the eternal dominion of the house of David, afforded the complete objective foundation for the subjective poetry of the Psalms. The eternity of dominion here promised to Judah was, as we learn from 2 Sam. vii., transferred to David. The exalted person in whom, according to our passage, the dominion of Judah was to culminate, must then necessarily belong to the house of David. _Further_,--If the passage under review be understood of the Messiah, we have an excellent fountainhead for all the prophecies of a personal Messiah; in its significant, enigmatical, and expressive brevity, it is most suitable for such a purpose. But if its reference to the Messiah be explained away, we are deprived altogether of a suitable starting-point. In the Davidic psalms, the Messianic prophecy already more strongly resembles a stream than a fountain.

So great is the weight of these reasons for the Messianic interpretation, that we might reasonably have expected that such expositors at least as stand on the ground of positive Christianity should abandon it only from overwhelming reasons, or, at least, from such only as are in the highest degree probable. But in this expectation we have been disappointed. The most superficial objections have been considered sufficient by _Hofmann_, _Kurtz_, and others, to induce them to disregard the consensus of the whole Christian Church. We cannot, indeed, but be astonished at this.

_Kurtz_, following the example of _Hofmann_, says: "The organic progress of prophecy, and its correlative connection with history, which must be maintained in all its stages, forbid us, most decidedly, to assign to the expectation of a personal Messiah, a period so early as that of the Patriarchs. The clearly expressed aim of the whole history of this period is the expansion into a great nation; its whole tendency is directed towards the growth of the multiplicity of a people from the unity of the Patriarchs. As long as the subject of the history was the increase into a nation, the idea of a single personal Saviour [Pg 79] could not, by any means, take root. Such could occur only after they had actually expanded into a great nation in history, and the necessity had been felt of concentrating the multiplicity of the expanded, into the unity of a single, individual, _i.e._, after one had appeared as the deliverer and saviour, as the leader and ruler of the whole nation. It is therefore only after Moses, Joshua, and David, that the expectation of a personal Messiah could arise."--Do you mean to teach God wisdom? we might ask, in answer to such argumentation. To chain prophecy to history in such a manner, is in reality nothing short of destroying it. How much soever people may choose to varnish it, this is but another form of Naturalism, against the influence of which no one is secure, because it is in the atmosphere of our day. Men who occupy a ground of argumentation so narrow-minded and trifling,--who would rather shape history than heartily surrender themselves to it, and find out, meditate upon, and follow the footsteps of God in it,--will be compelled to erase even the promise in Gen. xii. 3, "In thee all the families of the earth shall be blessed," yea, even the words, "I will make of thee a great nation," with which the promise begins; for even _that_ violates the natural order. But the historical point of connection for the announcement of a personal Messiah, which here at once, like a flash of lightning, illuminates the darkness, is not at all wanting to such a degree as is commonly asserted. On the contrary, if the blessing upon the heathen be allowed to stand, the expectation of a personal Saviour must necessarily arise from a consideration of the known events of history, and meet the immediate revelation of such an one by God. The whole history of the time of the Patriarchs bears a _biographical_ character. Single individuals are, in it, the depositaries of the divine promises, the channels of the divine life. All the blessings of salvation which the congregation possessed at the time when Jacob's blessing was uttered, had come to them through single individuals. Why, then, should the highest Salvation come to them in any other way? Why should not Abraham be as fit a type of the Messiah as Moses, Joshua, and David,--Abraham, of whom God, in Gen. xx. 7, says to Abimelech, the heathen king, "Now therefore restore the man his wife, for he is a prophet; and if he prays for thee, thou shalt live?" Or why not Joseph, who, according to Gen. xlvii. 12, "nourished [Pg 80] his father and his brethren, and all his father's household," and whom the grateful Egyptians called "the Saviour of the World?"

Just as untenable is a second argument against the Messianic explanation,--namely, that there is no parallelism between the two clauses, "until Shiloh comes," "and to Him shall be the obedience of the nations," but only a pure progress of thought. The laws of parallelism are not iron fetters; and, moreover, the parallelism in substance fully exists here, if only it be acknowledged that יקהה does not signify any kind of obedience, but only a willing surrender. The words, "until Shiloh comes, and to Him shall be the obedience of the nations," are identical in meaning with, "until He cometh, who bringeth rest, and whom the nations shall willingly obey." The second member thus serves to explain the first; the sense would be substantially preserved although one of the members were wanting. The parallelism is slightly concealed only by the circumstance that the words run, "to Him the obedience of the nations,"--instead of, "He to whom shall be the obedience of the nations."

Let us now take a survey of the principal non-Messianic interpretations. A suspicion as to their having any foundation at all in the subject itself must surely be raised by their variety and multiplicity, as well as by the circumstance, that they who object to the Messianic explanation can never, in any way, succeed in uniting with each other, but that, with them, one interpretation is sure to be overthrown by another. Such is, in every case, a sure indication of error.

Moreover, it is possible, in every case, to trace out some interest, apart from the merits of the question, which has led to the objections against the Messianic interpretation. With the Jews, it was because they were driven to a strait by the argumentation of the Christians, that the Messiah must long ago have come, since sceptre and lawgiver had long ago departed from Judah. The rationalistic interpreters have evidently been determined by their antipathy to any Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. _Hofmann_ and his followers do not in the least conceal that they are guided by their principle of a concatenation of prophecy with history.

The opinion, according to which it is maintained that Shiloh is the name of the well-known locality in Ephraim, has found not a few defenders. Among these, several, and last of all [Pg 81] _Bleek_, in the _Observ._; _Hitzig_, on Ps. li. 2; _Diestel_, "der Segen Jacobs," translate: "Until he or they come to Shiloh." The sense is thus supposed to be: "Judah will be the leader of the tribes, in the journey to Canaan, until they come to Shiloh." There, in consequence of the tribes being dispersed to the boundaries assigned to them, he would then lose his leadership.[13] But such an explanation is, in every point of view, inadmissible. It is very probable that the town Shiloh did not exist at all, under this name, at the time of Jacob. The name nowhere occurs in the Pentateuch; and the Book of Joshua (as we shall show at a subsequent time) contains traces, far from indistinct, that it arose only after the occupation of the land by the Israelites. But even supposing that the town of Shiloh already existed tit the time of Jacob, yet the abrupt mention of a place so little known would be something strange and unaccountable. It would be out of the range of Jacob's visions, which nowhere regard mere details, but have everywhere for their object only the future in its general outlines. _Further_,--The temporary limitation thus put to the superiority of Judah would be in glaring contradiction to vers. 8 and 9, where Judah is exalted to be the Lion of God without any limitation as to time. And, _finally_,--Up to the time of their arrival in Shiloh, Judah was never in possession of the sceptre and lawgiver;--and this reason would alone be sufficient to overthrow the opinion which we are now combating. We have already proved that, by these terms, royal power and dominion are designated, and that, for this reason, the _beginning_ of the fulfilment cannot be sought for in any period previous to the time of David. But even if we were to come down to the mere _leadership_ of Judah, we could demonstrate that even this did not belong to him. His marching in front of the others cannot, even in the remotest degree, be considered as a leadership. Moses, who belonged to another tribe, had been solemnly called by God to the chief command. Nor was Joshua [Pg 82] of the tribe of Judah. In him, on the contrary, there appeared the germ of Ephraim's superiority, which continued through the whole period of the Judges, and which came to an end only by David's having been raised to the royal dignity. (Compare my commentary on Ps. lxxviii.)

Others (_Tuch_, _Maurer_) give the explanation: "As long as they come to Shiloh." This, according to them, the "poet" meant to be identical with: "in all eternity." They think that his (the "poet's") meaning was, that the holy tabernacle, which at his time (_Tuch_ assigns the composition of Jacob's blessing to the period of Samuel) was at Shiloh, would remain there to all eternity. To this exposition it would be alone sufficient to object that, according to it, the phrase עד כי, which uniformly means only "until," is taken in the signification "as long as." _Further_,--History plainly enough shows how little the sanctuary was considered to be bound to Shiloh; to which place it had been brought, not in consequence of an express divine declaration, but only in accordance with Joshua's own views. When the ark of the covenant was carried away by the Philistines, this was considered as an express declaration of God, that He would no longer dwell in Shiloh. How different was the case as regards Jerusalem! Notwithstanding the destruction by the Chaldees, the city continued to be the seat of the sanctuary. _Further_,--This view implies a strange blending of gross error--viz., the supposition that the sanctuary would remain for ever in Shiloh--and of true prophecy, viz., the announcement, uttered at the time of Ephraim's leadership, of the dominion of the tribe of Judah, which was first realized in David's royalty. The only ground in support of the Ephraimitic Shiloh--the fact, namely, that Shiloh, wherever else it occurs in the Old Testament, always signifies the name of the place--we hope to invalidate by and by; when it will be seen that the town received its name only on the ground of the passage now under consideration.

Other opponents of the Messianic interpretation take Shiloh as a _nomen appellativum_, in the signification of _rest_. They translate either, "Until rest cometh and people obey him" (thus _Vater_, _Gesenius_, _Knobel_), or, "Until he comes (or, they come) to rest" (thus _Hofmann_, _Kurtz_, and others). By "rest," they understand either the political rest enjoyed under David and Solomon, or they find here expressed the idea of eternal rest in [Pg 83] the expected Messianic time. Thus do _Gesenius_, _Hofmann_, and _Kurtz_ understand it. The last-named determines the sense thus: "Judah shall remain in the uninterrupted possession of a princely position among his brethren, until through warfare and by victory he shall have realized the aim, object, and consummation of his sovereignty in the attained enjoyment of happy rest and undisturbed peace, and in the willing and joyful obedience of the nations." But this explanation is to be suspected, simply from the circumstance, that, in whatever other place Shiloh occurs, it is used as a _nomen proprium_; while it is entirely overthrown by the circumstance, that, according to its form, as already deduced, Shiloh can be nothing else than a _nomen proprium_.[14] We here only remark, by way of anticipation, that David, Solomon, Isaiah, and Ezekiel bear testimony against this explanation. An interpretation which dissevers the connection betwixt Shiloh and Shiloh, betwixt Shiloh and Solomon, betwixt Shiloh and the Prince of Peace, betwixt Shiloh and Him "whose is the judgment," must be, thereby, self-condemned. Against the explanation, "Until he comes to rest," it may also be urged, that the Accusative could not here stand after a verb of motion; it was too natural to consider Shiloh as the subject. If it had been intended in any other sense, a preposition would have been absolutely requisite.

We further remark, that vers. 11 and 12, which ancient and modern interpreters, _e.g._, _Kurtz_, have attempted to bring into artificial connection with ver. 10, simply "finish the picture of Judah's happiness by a description of the luxurious fulness of his rich territory" (_Tuch_). Their tenor is quite different from that which precedes, where a pre-eminence was assigned to Judah; for they contain nothing beyond a simple, positive declaration. What is in them assigned to Judah, belongs to him only as a part of the whole, as a fellow-heir of the country flowing with milk and honey, and corresponds entirely with the blessings upon the other sons, which are, almost all of them, only individual applications of the general blessing. It is evidently parallel to what, in vers. 25, 26, is said of Joseph, and in ver 20 of Asher. That which Jacob here assigns to Judah, was [Pg 84] formerly, in Gen. xxvii. 28, assigned by Isaac to Jacob, and in him to the whole people: "God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine." Hence, it is not at all necessary to examine history for the purpose of ascertaining whether Judah was distinguished above the other tribes, by plenty of wine and milk.

We need not lose much time in discussing the attempts which have been made to assign the blessing of Jacob to a later period. The futility of all of them is proved by the circumstance, that we have not here before us any special predictions, such as are peculiar to _vaticinia post eventum_, but general prophetical outlines, individual applications of the general blessings, exemplifications. Whatever seems, at first sight, to be different, melts away while handling it. Thus, for example, the blessings which Israel enjoyed by his dwelling on the sea-side, are pointed out in the blessing upon Zebulun, because he had his name from the _dwelling_, Gen. xxi. 20. That Zebulun is here viewed only as a part of the whole, appears from the fact that, afterwards, he did not live by the sea at all. In the case of Issachar, it was the individuality of the ancestor Jacob which gave him occasion to describe, from his own example, the dangers of an indolent rest. History does not say anything of Issachar alone having yielded to these dangers in a peculiar degree. In the case of Joseph, the events personal to the son are transferred to the tribe, and in the tribe, to the whole nation. In an inimitable manner the tender love of the father towards his son and provider meets us here. The only thing which goes beyond the human sphere of Jacob, is the prediction by which Judah is placed in the centre of the world's history. But it is just this which, even in its beginnings, goes beyond the time at which this pretended _vaticinium post eventum_ is placed by _Tuch_, _Bleek_, and _Ewald_; for, by this assumption of theirs, they are necessarily limited to the time before David, if they wish to avoid the insurmountable difficulties which arise from what is said of Levi and of Joseph. But to the man who looks deeper, vers. 8-10 are just the seal of the divinity, and hence of the genuineness also, of this prophecy, and, with all his heart, he will hate such miserable conjectures.[15]

[Pg 85]

Let us now follow through history Jacob's blessing upon Judah. From this inquiry it will appear how deep has been the impression made by it upon the people of the covenant. On this occasion also, it will be seen still more distinctly what the right is which rationalistic criticism has to declare this _fundamental prophecy_ to be the recent production of an obscure poet. The chain-like character of Holy Scripture will be seen in a very striking light.

In Num. ii. regulations are laid down respecting the order in which the tribes are to encamp about the tabernacle, and in which they are to set forth. "On the east side, towards which the entrance of the sanctuary is directed, and hence in the front, Judah, as the principal tribe, is encamped; and the two sons of his mother--Issachar and Zebulun--who were born immediately after him, pitch next to him. On the south side there is the camp, with the standard, of Reuben; and next to him are his brother Simeon, who was born immediately after him, and Gad, one of the sons of his mother's maid. The west side is assigned to the sons of Rachel, with Ephraim at their head. And, _finally_, on the north side, the three other sons of the maids, viz., Dan, Asher, and Naphtali, have their position. In the same order as they encamp they are also to set forth." (_Baumgarten_.)

Judah is the chief tribe on the chief side. This distinction [Pg 86] is not based on the deeds hitherto performed by Judah, nor is it the result of any revelation which Moses received upon the subject. It is regarded as a matter of course. And yet, there must necessarily have been some foundation for such a distinction, because, otherwise, it would have called forth the opposition of the other tribes, especially of that of Ephraim. Such a foundation, however, is afforded only by the blessing of Jacob, in which the tribe of Judah appears as the leading one. The complete realization of this prediction is left, indeed, in the hand of God; but the bearer of honours so great, even although future, must, in the prospect of that future, enjoy, even in the present, a certain distinction; such distinction, however, as does not at all imply sovereignty.

But we are compelled to have recourse to Genesis, and especially to chap. xlix., the more because the whole arrangement of the camp has evidently its foundation in Genesis, and the key to a whole series of facts in it can be found only in chap. xlix. If we ask why it is that the tribes of Issachar and Zebulun are subordinate to Judah; that Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, that Ephraim and Benjamin, that Dan, Asher, and Naphtali are encamped by each other; it is in Genesis alone that we are furnished with the answer.

The position which Reuben occupies specially points to Gen. xlix. As the first-born, he ought to stand at the head; but here we find him occupying the second place. In Gen. xlix. Jacob says to him, on account of his guilt, "Thou shalt not excel;" and "the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power," which up to that time he had possessed, are transferred to Judah. Yet Moses has so much regard to his original dignity, that he places him immediately after Judah; the utterance of Jacob did not entitle him to assign to him a lower position. _Further_,--The reason why Dan stands at the head of the sons of the maids is explained only in Gen. xlix. 16-18, where Dan is specially distinguished among them, and where it is specially said of him, "Dan shall judge his people."

If the blessing of Jacob be the production of a later time, then the order of the encampment, which rests upon it, must necessarily be so also; but such an idea will at once be discarded by every man of sound judgment. Even they who refuse to acknowledge Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, admit that [Pg 87] those regulations which bear reference only to the condition of things in the wilderness must have originated from him.

But exactly the same order which Moses in Num. ii. prescribes for the encampment and setting forth of the tribes, is found again in chap. vii., where there is described the offerings which the princes of the tribes offered at the dedication of the altar. Every prince has here a day to himself, and here also does Judah occupy the first place: "And he that offered his offering the first day was Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah."--If any one should venture to set down this chapter also, with all its details, as a fabrication of later times, he would only betray an utter absence of all scientific judgment.

According to Num. x. 14, Judah led the march when they set forth from Sinai.

Balaam's prophecies, the genuineness of which is proved by so many weighty arguments (compare the enumeration of them in my work on Balaam), rest, in general, on the fundamental prophecies of Genesis, but especially on the blessing of Jacob upon Judah.

In Num. xxiii. 24, Balaam says: "Behold, a people, like a full-grown lion he rises, and like a lion he lifts himself up. Not shall he lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain." This conclusion of Balaam's second prophecy, which at once demolishes Balak's vain hopes of victory, by pointing out the dreadful power of Israel, unconquerable by all his enemies, and crushing them all, has an intentional reference to Gen. xlix. 9,--a reference specially suitable for such a conclusion. What was there ascribed to Judah is here transferred to Israel, whose fore-champion Judah is. "Dost thou think," says Balaam to Balak, "of being able to overcome them, to stop them in their course towards the mark held out to them? Behold, according to an old revelation of their God, they are a people destroying their enemies with the lion's strength. Therefore, get thee out of their way, lest such a fate befall thee."

In Num. xxiv. 9, Balaam says, "He couches, he lies as a lion, and as a great lion, who shall stir him up?" As in the preceding prophecy he had pointed out Israel's dreadful power which secures to him victory in the battle, so here he shows how, even after having finished the battle, this power so intimidates his enemies, that they do not venture to disturb his peace. [Pg 88] That which Jacob had said of Judah, is, with intended literality, here transferred to Israel.

In Num. xxiv. 17, we read: "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh: a star goeth out of Jacob, and a sceptre riseth out of Israel, and smiteth the borders of Moab, and destroyeth all the sons of the tumult."--As the two preceding utterances carry us back to Gen. xlix. 9, so this one refers to ver. 10, where the sceptre, the emblem of dominion, denotes, just as it does in this passage, dominion itself, and where to Judah, and in him to all Israel, the kingdom is promised which shall at last be consummated in the Shiloh. The meaning of the words, "A sceptre riseth out of Israel," is explained in ver. 19 by the words, "Dominion shall come out of Jacob." Jacob has in view the internal relations among his descendants, and hence he speaks specially of Judah; but Balaam, in accordance with his object, speaks of Israel only. Jacob points, at the close, to Shiloh's just and peaceful dominion; but Balaam, who has to do with the enraged and obstinate enemies of Israel, points out, from among the effects produced by the star and sceptre, only the victorious might, and destructive power which these will display in the conflict with the enemies of Israel.

In the blessing of Moses, Deut. xxxii. 7, it is said of Judah: "Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him unto his people; with his hands he fights for himself, and be Thou an help to him from his enemies." Even the remarkable brevity of this utterance points back to the blessing of Jacob. With this brevity, the length of the blessing upon Levi, who had been treated too summarily by Jacob, forms a striking contrast. In the case of Reuben also, the attempt to pour oil into the wounds then inflicted is visible. The whole announcement is based upon the supposition that Judah is the fore-champion of Israel; and this supposition refers us back to Gen. xlix. This appears especially in the words, "Bring him to his people," on which light is thrown only by Gen.